It's time for Gaijin to finally reverse the ahistorical nerf to BOL countermeasures [Poll]

[Morvran]

@MigDonalds

Yet again the Nado is handicapped here for several reasons: good A2A loadout at that BR - which is why the early C hornet is at 12.7. At 12.0 not many aircraft can carry 8 missiles.

The F-18A is at 12.3 the only reason the F-18C is at 12.7 is because it has Aim-7Ps with IOG.

@MigDonalds

Then we have the BOL, which still adds extra capability to the Nados - furthering the argument that it is good where it is.

It was at the same relative BR, actually, if anything lower than it was now when BOL were modeled just like regular CMs. No one had issues. (11.3 vs the F-16A at 12.0) So why all of a sudden the Tornado F3 which is now relatively speaking higher than it was before msut be massively artifically nerfed?

@MigDonalds

The best thing that could happen to the Nado, would be the complete removal of BOL pods, which could make it go down to 11.7.

32 CMs? At 11.7 on an aircraft with basically no dogfighitng ability?

That would mean it would be 11.0 alongside the Mig-23M.

@MigDonalds

I ask you again: if you want BOL to be buffed, expect a raise in the BR of the Nado, the Harriers into BRs where their FMs are outdated. Its not that the CMs will defeat the missiles - your flight model will be so old and outdated compared to what you are up against, that the enemy team will do whatever they want to do with you and you will be left at the mercy of them.

And again. I have no issues with this. Id rather have 352 CMs at 12.3 than 32 at 12.0. I am full prepared and more than happy for the BR of some of these aircraft to have an increased BR

@Morvran

Aircraft that should move or get a reduced amount of BOL

• Harrier T10 (if it begins to struggle, then it can always get its missing 2x BOL, though the harriers accross the board have a lot of issues)
• Tornado F3 (quite frankly, shouldnt be at the same BR as the Phantom FGR2 anyway)
• Tornado F3 Late (with at least 1x Phimat pod)
• F-18C (The sheer amount is a major concern)

Aircraft that shouldnt move/change straight away, but need to be watched closely

• Viggen D
• Harrier Gr7
• Gripen A (I can definetly see 2x BOL being removed)
• Gripen C
• Typhoon

Aircraft that dont need move for various reasons

• Sea Harrier FA2
• Viggen DI
• Tornado Gr4
• F-14B

T10 would probably go up to 11.7 where it is fine and if its struggles it can get its missing 2x BOL.

Tornado F3 would be fine at 12.3 and if it begins to struggle it can get Phimat for extra CMs or they could finish the FM and add combat thrust or even get Aim-9Ms

Harrier Gr7 wouldnt move at this time I dont think and if it does. It can get its missing 2x AAMs for a further buff at 12.7

Tornado Gr4 wont move. 12.3 is already pushing it a bit imo, and its got such a good CM load anyway, you wont notice the extra strength from the BOL

Sea Harrier FA2 is already in desperate need of a BR reduction. So BOL Might actually keep it at the current BR and full strength BOL might mean you can get away with running just 1, which opens a world of extra loadout configs for it.

Tornado F3 Late should probably be higher than aircraft like the Viggen Di anyway, and again, has plenty of buffs available for it, Phimat is the bare minimum for 13.3 but if it really needed something it can get everything from towed radar decoys to ASRAAM and Aim-120C5s. It will be fine.

Typhoon having decent chaff in its BOL is hardly even worth mentioning given that everyone else already has half decent CM loads at top tier anyway

Those are the aircraft I fly and I dont see what the issue is with any of them getting full strength BOL

[MigDonalds]

Mind you, youd be at a higher BR with worse missiles.

Yeah sure lets give the F3 (without the Amraams) 9Ms and see its BR raised to 13.0, it would be totally fine at that BR /s

The F3 late with both amraams and 9M would sit at a BR of 13.3 or 13.7.

Sure lets add 320 extra full-size large caliber CMs to it as well - now we have a tornado F3 that is so capable that itd have to be put at 13.3 at the very least… and that would be the F3 with only SARH missiles, SARH missiles that are already horrible at 12.7 when it comes to their respective kinematic performance.

320 CMs are a lot - especially if they were modelled according to the OP of this post. Especially at 12.0.

Reduced numbers, than youd still be complaining because you cant turn off your brain for i dunno how many minutes.

[MatrixRupture]

Are you ok?

The F3 even with 9M and tons of CM would still be flailing around like a fish trying not to be caught.

It’s terrible in every imaginable way basically.

[MigDonalds]

And with stronger BOL pods, 9Ms and what nots it would flail even more, if that resulted in pushing it to higher BRs. At 12.0 its relatively comparable to Phantoms, and the few aircraft that is capable of catching up with it are things like the Mig 21 and 23.

Both the Nado and the 21 have horrible energy retention. You are really not supposed to engage in dogfights with the Nado.

The Mig 21 has horrible radar missiles.

The closest match to Nado in capabilities are F-4s and Mig 23s. The former matches the missile count, the latter has 2 less, unsure if it has DL to relock iirc it doesnt have one. Even BOL chaff is capable of disrupting the lock. It wont make you immune but can earn you a few precious miliseconds or more.

[Daft909]

@MigDonalds

I ask you again: if you want BOL to be buffed, expect a raise in the BR of the Nado, the Harriers into BRs where their FMs are outdated. Its not that the CMs will defeat the missiles - your flight model will be so old and outdated compared to what you are up against, that the enemy team will do whatever they want to do with you and you will be left at the mercy of them.

This is silly. With the way the harriers are unable to dictate any matchup, having the CM count just means you are delaying the inevitable of being caught. Ofc it can dogfight well but if youre energy trapped then you are a sitting duck for a third party or missile already even with extra countermeasures. Same deal with the tornados. you are not fast enough to be a threat for any competent player with a gun, and with how fast they loose energy when turning.

IMO, the British BOL attackers dont need to move. GR.7, T.10, GR.4. The F.3 Late needs them because its already a top tier ““fighter”” and the JAS39A also sits at 13.0. FA.2 for obvious reasons wont need to move (and until the GEN1 harriers FM is fixed, i could still see it dropping to 12.7 due to having to sacrifice everything to take 4 aim120, where as the AV8B+ can still have gau12 and 2 aim9M)

British stuff is always over tiered, broken or just outright wrong.

[MigDonalds]

You allowed yourself to be bogged down in a dogfight.

I say again: the Harrier as a fighter platform was a concept in 60s - where things were still relatively slow enough for a subsonic, but that was soon about to change.

Thats why I would never bring them into ARB - but they have a perfectly tailor made niche role in GRB, that is actually historical… deployments from a forward base with less developed infrastructure.

But lets say you bring a harrier into ARB - you are using a subsonic jet in BVR - bad idea cause your missiles wont have the kinematic performance due to your lower speed - so you are left to fend for yourself in a dogfight or in a engagement zone that is outranged by an opposing supersonic jet.

Now the only thing your opponent has in his sleeve is “carefully choosing the engagement”, which could entire be negated by BOL.

And this problem, khm, would be made worse by a stronger BOL, as it would be pushed higher and higher in the BR because of BOL performance.

---

Similar logic applies to the F3 at 12.0. You dont want to be pushed to higher BRs.

And as I said, you do NOT want to dogfight with a Nado, as it loses its energy quite quick. Mind you so does the Mig-29 or the Mig-21, not sure about the Mig-23 at the moment of speaking.

Do you know how I fight in a BVR? I fly sideways, and the Tornado can do that - not a hard notch, but lets say a 45-60 degree off set angle. Losing speed after launch by the way is advantageous in a BVR engagement as it also reduces closure speed, hence you have more time. Employ chaff while turning. Once I see the missile, very easy in this situation, I will then still have time to decide whether I want to fully notch, or continue.

Also: dragging the missile down into thicker air, to slow it down more.

There are tactics involved, both in how to defend against IR or Radar-guided missiles - and I can assuredly tell you, that the fact that on lower BRs the IR missiles are so easily fooled by flares, make those lower BRs ridiculously frustrating at times. It doesnt need to get worse because of a select few aircraft, lucky enough to carry BOL pods.
J-35XS for example has historically had very low amounts of flares - they would have the reason to complain, yet do you know what they do?

They use every possible piece of knowledge they have to wipe the floor with others.

So choose wisely:
Get a BOL pod buff, and see struggling aircraft pushed into BRs their flight model or avionics might not be able to handle, or stay where it is.

[Daft909]

@MigDonalds

Thats why I would never bring them into ARB - but they have a perfectly tailor made niche role in GRB, that is actually historical… deployments from a forward base with less developed infrastructure.

Ignoring the sea harrier FRS and later upgraded FA.2, both designed as fighter aircraft with the first having a 26/0 air to air victory. Their subsonic flight performance was unmatched, nothing could win in a close range engagement against a harrier, especially using VIFF. Its held back alot ingame due to the VIFF just not working. but thats for another topic.

Again, im not using any harrier with BOL in BVR combat as its a subsonic, the FA.2 can only do suprise attacks and force dogfights at 13.0… its borderline useless.

@MigDonalds

Now the only thing your opponent has in his sleeve is “carefully choosing the engagement”, which could entire be negated by BOL.

And this problem, khm, would be made worse by a stronger BOL, as it would be pushed higher and higher in the BR because of BOL performance.

This doesnt even make sense. even with BOL and a 1 v 1 engagement the enemy isnt going to get a missile off on me. It isnt happening. BOL or not. its just that the game has got BOL underperforming due to the JAS39A initial release, before AHR and when ir spam was at its greatest. In the multi enemy defensive posture of playing (T.10) for example, its countermeasures require me to essentially keep pressing the flare button until im absolutely certain even an R60 has been decoyed, wasting potentially 50/60 BOL. super inaccurate, super annoying and its not even guarantied. its almost impossible to get an R73 off your tail once its launched (unspotted su39 will be the bane of my existence in a harrier).

I dont even know what your issue is with these aircraft. MiG23 at 11.7 is way more problematic against the 11.0 roster then the ability of the harrier and tornadoes to defend themselves (which 90% of the people playing in airRB wont even use anyway because they have the IQ of a sticky note)

[MigDonalds]

The Harrier is good at subsonic speeds, yes. However even in real life, its design was outdated at the date of introduction, as things could outrun it. I.e. not be engaged in a dogfight with the Harrier.

Which, surprisingly I do as well: just run through them. If I kill it in the 1st pass, good, if no, I can have a 2nd turn as long as I extend and preflare / flare the Harrier wont technically be able to respond to me, especially if caught off guard, or off-angle. Do you understand? The Harrier is an aircraft like the A-10 and the Su-25 - a one trick pony, and its easy to deny the ideal conditions of a Harrier. Arguably less so for the lowest BR harriers.

As for the Flare: you dont need 50-60 flares. You have to flare at the right time, at the right angle. Also avoid leaving a trail of flares back to you. As for the Harrier - I have been told about the horrendous implementation of the Harrier heat signature - and Im certain that it should be fixed, but it should be fixed before a BOL pod nerf reverse.

I dont have a problem with these aircraft, you misunderstand me. But I do have a problem with a broken state of balance in which certain aircraft are basically immune, because they have access to something many other planes dont, in this case BOL pods. Anything above 150 / 150 CM I see is fucking excessive.

Coupled with the fact that at those lower BRs the “ever so deadly” missiles are not reallt reliable in tje face of CMs.

Arguably, I could see it being made stronger for the F3 late, considering its BR. But that might come at the cost of a BR increase, and the FM of the F3 at 13.0 is already bad enough. In my opinion its not the BOL pods lack of effectiveness, rather the FM of the F3 that lets it down at that BR.

[MigDonalds]

You make two mistakes:

Yes, before, the F3 was at a better BR placement at 11.3 - iirc the highest it could go against were ADF and Yak-141 (both were 12.3 iirc, not sure though)

At 12.0 the F3 is at a bad position - but as stated before: its too good to be put at a lower BR. The supertemps are alright missile at 12.0, perhaps even at 11.7.
300 something countermeasures that act like large CMs however, in the current state of things not really. The aircraft at 11.7-12.0 arent even the problem in this regard - the aircraft that are below you are, as those would face problems.

Uptiers its bad - mind you I consider almost anything that is at 12.0 to be in a horrible spot right now.

Those few 13.0 BR aircraft are also in a horrible spot (too good to be put at lower BR, but too bad for a higher BR).

It doesnt render the F3 bad outright. Sideclimbing, then running through the furball with an amazing missile set and sufficient amount of missiles, its quite capable as a flanker. Thats what I do in the Mig-21, and I am, relatively speaking, succesful with it. Things get worse when Im chasing someone, as a it takes is already just one flare, at shorter ranges. The IRCCM missiles are not that widely available for the opponents of the F3, except for a select few aircraft, but you can definetly dictate the engagement against those that do have it for tje most part.

The large majority of the aircraft would struggle against the tons of CMs those BOL pods provide.

If you dogfight only to end up losing a tornado thats on you. It also doesnt face the fancy new SAMs AFAIK unless you bring them into an uptier.

[BeautifulTai_wan]

@Morvran

That would mean it would be 11.0 alongside the Mig-23M.

MiG-23M has six countermeasures, a way worse radar, significantly worse missiles and lower numbers of missiles. At worst without BOL the plane would be one step lower, not three. Even then that is a stretch, the Tornado is still better than the UK F-4 despite having a terrible FM.

Shouldn’t forget that the MiG-23M also has an even worse FM.

[iboopy]

@MigDonalds

The Nado, believe it or not has a good FM at that BR. Brickish, but by far not the worst FM.

This is the only part here I disagree with, I can’t name a flight model worse than the tornados at 12.0/13.0

[Gunjob]

@MigDonalds

Also avoid leaving a trail of flares back to you.

Flare laddering is a myth. I should really report that.

[MatrixRupture]

@MigDonalds

The Harrier is good at subsonic speeds, yes. However even in real life, its design was outdated at the date of introduction, as things could outrun it. I.e. not be engaged in a dogfight with the Harrier.

You could only out run it if you hit and run and supersonic speeds. The Raw power of the Pegasus allowed it to easily out accelerate much faster planes up until 400-500 knots.

[MatrixRupture]

@MigDonalds

But lets say you bring a harrier into ARB - you are using a subsonic jet in BVR - bad idea cause your missiles wont have the kinematic performance due to your lower speed - so you are left to fend for yourself in a dogfight or in a engagement zone that is outranged by an opposing supersonic jet.

What missile will go farther…
A .9 Mach launch from 30,000 feet plus.

Or a Mach 1.2 launch from below 5,000 feet.

To add to that what missile will get to the target first one accelerated by gravity or one fighting against gravity.

Don’t forget that the Harrier 11-61 still holds the time to climb record up to 9,000 meters and even beat the Streak Eagle to 12,000 meters or 40,000 feet…

[Sea_Harrier_FRS1]

You said 11-62 instead of 11-61 :) but I’m happy to hear that a Harrier holds a world record that is difficult to get

[MatrixRupture]

Typo and yes pulling 4G into a vertical climb and still accelerating shows off just how stupid the power was.

People look at the turn rate charts on the AV-8B and see 12-13 degrees a second and go that’s crap…

Until they realize that’s a combat loaded Harrier only using 80% of its potential thrust output.

[MigDonalds]

Thats the point I am making - hit and run on a harrier, from an off-angle/guard position. At that point the harrier will be danced around.

Typical WT players will dogfight anything, unfortunately.

[MatrixRupture]

You won’t out run amraam dude,

Even aim 9L/m will be hard.

[MigDonalds]

Its not just air speed and altitude.

Its closure speed and altitude.

The higher alt shot will have better range than a lower alt shot.

If you fire at a lower altitude target the missile will have to go into a denser air, which means higher drag.

The initial speed of the missile at launch is the other factor, now with extra 300ish kph, the missile will have a higher initial speed. Mach .9 is like… 1100 kph. M 1.2 is like 1450ish kph (sorry I dont run around with a calculator).

It makes a huge difference.

Point Im making is that because the Harrier is sub-sonic/transsonic its missiles will typically have a shorter range compared to a supersonic launch. Thats both true for IR and radar missiles.

In this regard the Harrier is a one trick pony at lower BRs relying on peoples lack of knowledge with the Harrier, and being off-guard. At higher BRs it can be full of surprises but the original point holds.

Yeah you remember the closure speeds… due to Harriers lower speed, it is arguably easier to defend against BVR missiles. Something I tend to abuse with the Hornet.

In short: due to the difference in closure speed, the missile has to cover a larger range gap, which will slow it down more. Whereas say a typical supersonic vs supersonic engagement would be okay at 25kms (just purely speaking hypothetical ranges here), due to transonic vs supersonic difference in closure speed, your missile might not be effective up until 20kms in range. Thats why I never really die in BVR in the opening 5ish minutes in a game. There are times - as there are perhaps too many missiles in the air at times. There are times.

[MigDonalds]

Well, in BVR, you are supposed to energy fight the missile. Its not about outrunning it. Its about slowing it down enough that it wont be able to steer, or that it will fall out of sky harmless.